THE FERRIES AWARD

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6492, 11 April 1908, Page 11

THE FERRIES AWARD

AX EXPLANATION. Dissatisfaction is expressed by the Federated fVamci-’s Union m connection with iho agreement come to with the err pl-o’-’err, in tho dic-puto. rolaUnp; to tho Wellington Steam Ferry Co. dtmjig iho Inst sitting of the Arbitration Court in Wellington. It is alleged by tho union that tho parties agreed that the hours of work were to ho ten per day, inclusive of meal hours, yot when tho award was filed it sot tlie hours of labour down at ten, exclusive of two meal hours, which loft •Ju: uni-m in the sumo position as previously. The following explanation of the position is mrido by Mr B. "Wilson, Registrar of tbo Arbitration Court: — “When this dispute came before the Court, Mr Pryor, who appeared for the Ferry Company, stated that tho parties had settled the dispute. He proceeded then to state the terms of settlement, ono of these being that tho hours of work were not to bo more than ten hours for any day during rovon days, exclusive of meal hours Tho following i« a copy of his Honor’s note of the ag'fnrcnb on the point: ‘‘Old award to bo adopted. Clause 2, tho hours of work -.ot to be more then ten hours for any day during seven days of tho week, exclusive of meal hours. Each day to stand for itself for the purposes of overtime.” Mr Jones, who appeared for tho union, assented to Mi Pryors siatomcmt of the tenzis, and the award was mad© in accordance with tho terms ad thus stated. If any nostake has boon made, it has been made by Mr Jones, who appears to have agreed to something he did not intend to, and ho t ught not to shift tho responsibility for a mistake, for which he alone is responsible, by saying that a “clerical” error has been made in drawing up the award .

MR PRYOR'S SATEMBNT. In the course of an interview with a reju'esontativ© of tho “New Zealand Times,” Mr Pryor, secretary of the Kmxdoyors’ Federation, said before the Court mot, Mr Jones asked if it was not possible to oorno to a settlement of tho dispute on the basis of ten hours’ v\ ork a day. On behalf of the company, ho (Mr Pryor) intimated that if the old award were allowed to stand they would be prepared to agree. On mentioning this matter to the Court he stated specifically that the hours of work were not to bo more than ten per day for seven days a week, exclusive of meal-hours. Ho also pointed out that tho ferry steamers, as a rule, ran twelve hours a day, so the two hours off for meals would make the day just the same. As to Mr Jones’s remark that the men were worse off than before, that was not correct. Under the old award seventy hours had to be worked before overtime could be claimed. Under present conditions any work over ten hours in any one day bad to bo paid for at overtime rates. The company expected this would considerably increase its overtime payments.